Kevin Fisher-Paulson (left) and Brian Fisher-Paulson first fostered triplets, who were taken away. They then fostered and adopted two boys, Zane and Aiden, who are now 10 and 8.

Kevin Fisher-Paulson (left) and Brian Fisher-Paulson first fostered triplets, who were taken away. They then fostered and adopted two boys, Zane and Aiden, who are now 10 and 8.

Photo: Julian Guthrie, Courtesy Of The Fisher-Paulsons

Image 2 of 3

From left: Brian Fisher-Paulson, Zane Fisher-Paulson, Kevin Fisher Paulson Paulo Martin and Aidan Fisher Paulson are seen in their home in San Francisco on December 17, 2013. The Fisher-Paulsons went through a terrible ordeal in fostering triplet babies, nursed them back to health, and then had them taken away from them to be returned to their birth mother, who was schizophrenic. They later went on to foster and adopt the two boys. less

From left: Brian Fisher-Paulson, Zane Fisher-Paulson, Kevin Fisher Paulson Paulo Martin and Aidan Fisher Paulson are seen in their home in San Francisco on December 17, 2013. The Fisher-Paulsons went through a ... more

Photo: Susana Bates, Special To The Chronicle

Image 3 of 3

Letters to the editor, Jan. 4

1 / 3

Back to Gallery

"Foster triplets saved - then taken away," (Datebook, Jan. 2).

As a pediatrician for more than 40 years, I was appalled at the novice social disservice worker who thought the birth mother could care for these triplets, especially with the diagnosis of schizophrenia. What was she thinking?

The same goes for the ignorant judicial system. This was a tragedy in the making. These two men, the Fisher-Paulsons, put their lives on hold for these children, and then they were dumped on by the system. Outrageous.

I have been involved in similar situations during my medical practice, and no, the biological parents are not always the best ones to give love and care for their children.

Social worker a disgrace - but adopters are gifts to humanity

The article about the Foster triplets drew me in on several levels.

I was so touched by this couple suddenly changing their lives in order to provide good lives for their foster children. But I was appalled at the insensitive, hurtful, sexist statements made by the social worker. After a year, she wrenched these children away from their daddy and papa to reunite them with the clueless birth mother who, struggling with substance abuse and severe mental illness, walked out of the hospital after giving birth.

Visitation proved the birth mother's inability to understand the basics of mothering, yet the social worker said that the love of two men can never replace the love of a woman. Her personal biases were evident again when the reunification predictably failed and, acting in the worst interest of all parties, she placed the triplets in yet another setting, rather than returning them to their fathers.

Two conclusions: This social worker is a disgrace to the profession, and Brian and Kevin Fisher-Paulson are gifts to humanity.

Report on CCSF is out of touch

In making its arguments to support the ongoing process to potentially close City College of San Francisco, the attorneys for the accrediting commission made the incredulous assertion that the commission was simply acting as a consumer advocate for the residents of San Francisco.

Why, then, do the majority of San Francisco residents strongly disagree withe the methodology and conclusions of the commission? Why, then, do the majority of San Franciscans, based on "best bang for the buck," rate CCSF among the highest of all city institutions?

The commission, with its rush-to-judgment notion of due process, is clearly out of touch with and clearly not advocating for the San Francisco residents that it allegedly represents, but rather for its own narrow agenda.

Strike the banners

Re the banners on Market Street proclaiming "Abortion hurts women": The proclamation is hate speech and untrue ("Ah, the holiday season along Market Street," City Insider, Jan. 1).

That the city of San Francisco should allow this to be broadcast across our main thoroughfare or any thoroughfare at all is damaging and hurtful to women and men alike.

The March for Life banner-hangers have every right to their religious and political beliefs. They do not have the right to spread misinformation in utter disregard of girls and women everywhere. Women like me.

I had a back-alley abortion in 1956 after a workplace rape. The abortion did not hurt me; it gave me back my life. I was lucky. Millions of women like me, before Roe vs. Wade offered safety, were indeed hurt - or wound up dead.

If each marcher under those banners could find and know one actual fetus to protect, and simultaneously see and know the woman in whose body that fetus resides, I suggest the marcher might want to protect that woman too. She is likely to be poor, disempowered and desperate. Forcing those like her to bear unwanted children or endanger themselves - that hurts women. The banners should come down.

Not my anthem

On New Year's Day, I watched more than 90,000 people at the Rose Bowl who, like me, wanted to stand and belt out the National Anthem.

I wanted to sing along with the five ladies on the field. It was impossible to do, however - they were singing a song I never heard before. I recognized the words, but the melody was something else. This was not my national anthem.

Too many people nowadays don't remove their hats and put their hands over their hearts. That is bad enough, but don't take the "Star Spangled Banner" away from me. Sing it like it was meant to be sung.

Pope and women

There is much to admire about Pope Francis: his advocacy for the poor, the warm and humble way in which he conducts himself, and his repeated calls for tolerance and equality ("Pope urges acceptance of diversity," Jan. 2).

It's my hope that, in support of his statements that "we belong to the same human family, and we share a common destiny," the pope is willing to lead by example by guiding the Catholic Church to confer on Catholic women the same rights to participate in the church that it already confers on Catholic men.

Mark Segelman, San Francisco

Presidio - wait

Thanks for continuing to insist on the most logical and appropriate plan for the Presidio right now: Wait until the freeway work is finished, the parkway has been built and everyone has had a chance to see what, if anything, should be added to this area as they walk around what will be a greatly transformed landscape ("Don't rush Presidio plan," Editorial, Jan. 3).

Any structure that's put there will not only alter the park but the view of that whole hillside from the bay.

Would it be helpful to show, in a rendering, what the insertion of these planned buildings might look like from the water or Marin County?